Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-06-08
THE STATE DOES JUSTICE.


THE STATE DOES JUSTICE.
The decision of the Supreme Court in
the matter of the claims against the relief
fund of the late Drainage District No !, in
which the debris dams were constructed,
does substantial justice to the claimants
and harms no one. The Supreme Court
some years ago held the Act creating the
district to be unconstitutional. A number
of citizens who had furnished materials
and performed labor and advanced money
upon the levees and dams under order of
the Commissioners, on the faith of the in
tegrity Of the law, were thus suddenly cut
off from their dues. Some of these were
farmers and their sons who had taken their
teams from the pillow and worked upon the
leyees and dams; Others were material
men, who had furnished to the State and
her contractors material for various con-
structions; others were contractors, who
in good faith had covenanted with the
State, represented by her Commissioners,
to do certain work according to specifica-
tons furnished by the State.
1t makes no sort OF difference whatever
that many of the claims were hypotheca-
ted with bankers, and some of them sold
to moneyed men. That fact, since they
we're capable of assignment, cuts no figure
in the case. When these claims came before
the Legislature, the RECoRD-UNIoN main
tanned that they were good in equity and
justified the demand for their payment,
and this Journal, during the whole long
contention before the Legislature, urged
the justice of payment.
Strange as it may appear, the chief OPP
position to the equitable argument came
from the San Francisco press, and it was
embodied in the single and pertinacious
cry that the whole business of building
the dams and repairing the levees was " a
steal" and that somebody had stolen from
the State and defrauded the people. Yet
at no time was a solitary instance of fraud
designated nor single item pointed ont
that was tainted with wrong. One of the
Commissioners is now the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, whose character is of
the highest; another is a pioneer citizen
of Sacramento of unimpeachable integ-
rlty the third a distinguished citizen
whose honesty is without question 1t
appeared for long time, however, to be
sufficient to simply shout fraud" with
ont single specification Of its existence.
The Legislature was finally convinced
of the justice Of the claims, which were
fortified by the auditing Endorsement of
the Commission, and in 1885 a bill was
passed appropriating money for their pay
ment. 1t would appear that this action
of the representative body of the people
ought to have ended the matter. Con-
troller Dunn, however, refused TO issue
the warrants, and peremptory writ of
mandamus having issued against him, he
appealed. The Supreme Court now af-
hrms the mandate of the Court below, and
the Controller must issue his warrants
and the claimants be paid.
Ii was contended that as the Constitu-
ton Section 81 of Article IV) prohibits
payment of claims under agreements or
contracts not made by express authority of
law : and as the Act creating the Com
mission was held to be void, therefore the
claims should not be paid. The Supreme
Court, however, holds that this technical
and refined Interpretation of the word
Law" does not apply. Claw" in the sec
tion referred to, is to be taken in Its
broader and more popular sense, and not
restricted TO mean valid or constitutional
law. Justice Paterson well says: cit is a
universal rule that an unconstitutional
law is void al into, and absolutely want
ing in all binding force, and is a nullity.
But there is an exception, that an Act
duly passed and approved, has the force of
law to protect citizens dealing with public
officers under its provisions up to the time
that it is declared unconstitutional"
This was precisely the position taken by
all whe favored the payment of the claims.
They held, in common with the REcoRp
UNION and most of the Northern Califor-
MIA press, that the contractors and workers
aud material men acted in good faith with
the State: made their ventures upon the
honest belief that the law creating the
Commission was constitutional. To say
that all men dealing with the State must
do so upon the hazard OF the authority
justifying them being held to be without
effect, has always appeared to US to be
monstrous doctrine That the State
should excuse herself for not
doing equity because of her
own wrong, is still more mon
strous to contemplate. As the Supreme
Court says: "An unconstitutional law is
not always and for all purposes nulIity.
SO far as the rights of citizen are con-
cerned. After g citizen has dealt with the
State under circumstances like those shown
here, the case does not come within the
puryiew of Section 80 and the Legislature